In its response to the DICE filing, Bold has requested, among other things, that the court dismiss all DICE's claims. Further, the response asks that the court award Bold "the costs and fees incurred in defending against this baseless lawsuit."

DICE leveled three complaints against Bold in its original court filing, including violation of the Michigan Uniform Trade Secret Act, conversion (civil as opposed to criminal theft), and unjust enrichment from the conversion allegation. Bold "denied as untrue" all three claims.

Calls to Bold counsel R. Christopher Cataldo, of Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss PC, and DICE counsel Craig W. Horn, of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner PLC, were not returned by press time.Security industry attorney Eric Griffin, former general counsel for Protection 1, said Bold's response to the complaint was in line with suits of this nature.

"The answer looks to be of a fairly standard form, where everything is essentially denied other than the obvious facts," Griffin told Security Systems News. "These things are pretty straightforward: You either admit it, say 'I don't have enough information,' or deny … Bold is simply saying the facts alleged by Dice are not true."

As part of the response, Bold includes 15 affirmative defenses, including the assertion that "DICE's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because its alleged damages were caused by non-parties to this action." Not named as an actual defendant, though central to DICE's original complaint, is former long-time DICE employee Amy Condon. Condon started at the company as a customer service rep in 1997 and, after 14 years filling positions including software engineer, disaster recovery coordinator, and product support, left DICE in May 2011 for a software support position with Bold. DICE alleges Condon acted as an agent for new employer Bold.

What's next for the embattled automation platform providers?

"Typically what will happen now is there'll be a period of discovery during which each side will submit to the other various requests for documents and requests for interrogatories. Each party will serve those on the other and it could take quite a long time," Griffin said. "After all that's done either one or both sides might say, 'Well there's not sufficient evidence here for one side or the other to continue,' so they might motion for a summary judgment and the court may grant that."